Proponents
of the “Open” view of God claim to believe in God’s
infiniteness; therefore the implications of the infinity of God will
be explored to determine whether they are consistent with the tenets
of open theism. A proper definition of God’s infiniteness will
be outlined, including the relationship of an infinite God to space
and time. Open theism’s arguments for the temporality of God
will be examined in light of God’s infinity, and evidence will
be presented for the timelessness of God. Finally, this article will
explore the implications that God’s infiniteness has regarding
the debate about God’s foreknowledge.

Clark
Pinnock, an advocate of open theism, acknowledges that no doctrine is
more important than the doctrine of God. He states, “The
concept of God is the most important topic in theology -- and the
most mysterious. Dealing with it makes one aware of the limitations
of our finite understanding.”1
Pinnock is correct in this assertion, and it is important to
understand that any concept of God can be viewed as an interdependent
package of characteristics. One of the primary features of such a
grouping of attributes is that it must be coherent and internally
consistent. Ronald Nash explains this idea in the following words:

A concept of God may be thought of as a cluster or package of
properties attributed to the divine being. The phrase package of
attributes suggests that the properties attributed to God are
tied together in some way. I can go still further, and speak of the
set of divine attributes as a logical package, which is simply
a way of saying that they must fit together logically; the entire
cluster of divine attributes must be logically consistent....With
respect to any proposed concept of God, then, it is proper to ask if
the various elements of the concept fit together.2

Nash goes on
to say that some divine attributes will logically entail certain
other attributes, and that “logical entailments between
different attributes have the effect of producing different packages
of attributes and thus different concepts of God.”3
Pinnock recognizes this when he states, “On the basis of
divine revelation we strive for a biblically and conceptually sound
understanding of God and of the package of divine properties that
contribute to a coherent understanding. Each attribute needs to be
explained coherently and the attributes together shown to be
compatible with one another and with the vision of God as a whole.”4
Another openness author, William Hasker, says that his purpose is to
“exhibit the rational coherence of the theology of divine
openness.”5
These statements by two advocates of open theism present an
invitation to examine the coherence of their proposed concept of God.

Open
theists do not reject all aspects of the traditional concept of God.
They affirm God’s infinity, His uncaused existence, His
ontological independence from His creation, His act of creating the
universe ex nihilo, and His capability to directly and
supernaturally intervene in the created universe. By affirming these
characteristics, the open theists attempt to clearly separate their
view from that of process theology. Pinnock comments that open
theists are seeking “a way to revise classical theism in a
dynamic direction without falling into process theology
....without making God finite.”6
[emphasis added] Also, Pinnock’s previously quoted statement
that dealing with the doctrine of God “makes one aware of the
limitations of our finite understanding” contains an implied
contrast between the infiniteness of God and the finiteness of His
human creatures. Since the infinity of God is one of the fundamental
attributes that open theists recognize and accept, it will be
important to outline a proper definition of God’s infiniteness.

Definition
of God’s Infinity

In its
simplest terms infinity indicates that God is free from any
limitations or boundaries. At its heart, the concept of God’s
infinity expresses the distinction between the Creator and the
creature, as well as the unbridgeable ontological gap between God and
man.

There will always be a difference between God and man. The gap
between us is not merely a moral and spiritual disparity which
originated with the fall. It is metaphysical, stemming from
creation. Even when redeemed and glorified, we will still be renewed
human beings. We will never become God. He will always be God and
we will always be humans, so that there will always be a
transcendence. Salvation consists in God’s restoring us to
what he intended us to be, not elevating us to what he is....God can
never be completely captured in human concepts. This means that all
of our doctrinal ideas, helpful and basically correct though they may
be, cannot fully exhaust God’s nature. He is not limited to
our understanding of him.7

God’s
infinity was expressed in the following way by John Gill: “When
we say that God is infinite, the meaning is that he is unbounded and
unlimited, unmeasurable or immense, unsearchable and not to be
comprehended.”8
Louis Berkhof amplifies the definition by saying, “The
infinity of God is that perfection of God by which He is free from
all limitations. In ascribing it to God we deny that there are or
can be any limitations to the divine Being or attributes. It implies
that He is in no way limited by the universe, by this time-space
world, or confined to the universe. It does not involve His identity
with the sum-total of existing things, nor does it exclude the
co-existence of derived and finite things, to which He bears
relation.”9
This points out the relationship of God to the created universe and
indicates that derived, finite, and created things exist in a
different way than does their Creator. Gill makes the following
statement regarding the relationship of God to the dimensions of
space and time:

He is not a body consisting of parts; was he, he would be finite, for
body or matter is a creature of time, and not eternal, and is limited
to a certain place, and so not every-where....God is an uncreated
Spirit, was before all time, so not bounded by it, and was before
space or place were, and existed without it, and so not to be limited
to it and by it. He is the “first Being” and from whom
all others have their being: “Before him there was no God
formed, neither shall there be after him; yea, he is the first and
the last” (Isa. 43:10; 44:6).10

God’s
relationship to space and time are important aspects of his infinity
which will both be examined in view of their implications for the
open view of God.

God’s
Infinity as it Relates to Space

Regarding
God’s infinity as it relates to the dimension of space Berkhof
comments, “It may be defined as that perfection of the Divine
Being by which He transcends all spatial limitations, and yet is
present in every point of space with His whole Being....Heaven and
earth cannot contain Him (1 Kings 8:27; Isa 66:1; Acts 7:48-49) and
at the same time He fills both and is a God at hand (Ps 139:7-10);
Jer 23:23-24; Acts 17:27-28).”11
Additional biblical evidence is provided by Gill when he relates
God’s infinity to His activity in creating and upholding the
universe:

If God is infinite, that is, unbounded with respect to space and
place, then he must be everywhere; and this is to be proved from his
power, which is everywhere: as appears, not only in the creation of
all things, as the heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth and
the ends of them, and all that is in them; but in his providence,
supporting and sustaining them; for not only the creatures have their
being in him, and from him, and therefore he must be near them; but
“he upholds all things by his power,” they consist in
him, he provides for them, and preserves them all; and which is the
argument the apostle uses to prove that he is not far from them (Acts
17:27-28).12

The actions
of God in the creation and providence of the finite universe,
therefore, illustrate the complete dependence of the spatial universe
on the infinite God. Several additional insights are provided by
Erickson as he clarifies the relationship between the infinite God
and the universe of space which He has created:

God is not subject to limitations of space. By this we do not mean
merely the limitation of being in a particular place -- if an object
is in one place it cannot be in another. Rather, it is improper
to think of God as present in space at all....God is the one who
brought space (and time) into being. He was before there was space.
He cannot be localized at a particular point....Another aspect of
God’s infinity in terms of space is that there is no place
where he cannot be found. ...The point here is that nowhere within
the creation is God inaccessible. Jeremiah quotes God as saying, “Am
I a God at hand...and not a God afar off?” (Jer. 23:23). The
implication seems to be that being a God at hand does not preclude
his being afar off as well. He fills the whole heaven and earth (v.
24)....God is not localized. He has not been left behind. He is
available to us wherever we may be....He does not, however, move from
one place to another as a sort of divine superman who flies at
infinite speed. Rather, he simply has access to the whole of the
creation at all times.13

It is
essential, then, to conceive of God as existing altogether beyond the
realm of space, and yet being accessible to His creation at every
point. An analogy has often been used to express this truth and,
although the analogy has its limitations, it is nonetheless helpful
when it comes to expressing the concept of God’s perspective in
reference to spatial relationships:

Augustine and Aquinas...referred to the example of an observer on a
high hill, or tower who sees things going on far below him. Clearly,
they thought, such an observer could be simultaneously aware of many
different spatial relationships. He could perceive that B is in
front of A and that C is behind B. Even if the observer were
separated from the spatial points, he could know the spatial
relationships occupied by the things below him.14

In an
analogous way God, although existing beyond the realm of space, has
the unique ability to oversee and act upon every aspect of His
created universe. Understanding the truths of God’s infinity
in regard to space will be extremely helpful when it comes to
grasping God’s infinity in relationship to time.

God’s
Infinity as it Relates to Time

Regarding
the dimension of time Berkhof comments, “The infinity of God in
relation to time is called His eternity….Eternity in the
strict sense of the word is ascribed to that which transcends all
temporal limitations….His eternity may be defined as that
perfection of God whereby He is elevated above all temporal limits
and all succession of moments, and possesses the whole of His
existence in one indivisible present.”15
Gill also shows that a proper definition of God’s eternity
(infinity as it relates to time) must put God outside the realm of
time.

Eternity, properly so called, is that which is without beginning and
end, and is without succession, or does not proceed in a succession
of moments one after another; and is opposed to time, which has a
beginning, goes on in succession, and has an end: it is the measure
of a creature’s duration, and began when creatures began to be
and not before, and is proper to them, and not eternity which only
belongs to God.16

Robert
Lightner cites several Scriptures that apply this definition of God’s
infinity as it relates to time, and he observes that, “Past,
present, and future are our ways of speaking about our lives. With
God, however, His life is not divided by segments of time. Though
God is the author of time, He is neither conditioned nor confined by
it (Gen. 21:32-34; Deut. 33:27; Ps. 90:2; 102:12).”17
Erickson provides additional insights explaining the relationship
between the infinite God and the dimension of time which He has
created:

God is also infinite in relation to time. Time does not apply to
him. He was before time began. The question, How old is God? is
simply inappropriate. He is no older now than a year ago, for
infinity plus one is no more than infinity. He simply is not
restricted by the dimension of time. God is the one who always is.
He was, he is, he will be....The fact that God is not bound by time
does not mean that he is not conscious of the succession of points of
time. He knows what is now occurring in human experience. He is
aware that events occur in a particular order. Yet he is equally
aware of all points of that order simultaneously. This transcendence
over time has been likened to a person who sits on a steeple while he
watches a parade. He sees all parts of the parade at the different
points on the route rather than only what is going past him at the
moment. He is aware of what is passing each point of the route. So
God also is aware of what is happening, has happened, and will happen
at each point in time. Yet at any given point within time he is also
conscious of the distinction between what is now occurring, what has
been, and what will be. There is a successive order to the acts of
God and there is a logical order to his decisions, yet there is no
temporal order to his willing. His deliberation and willing take no
time. He has from all eternity determined what he is now doing.
Thus his actions are not in any sense reactions to developments. He
does not get taken by surprise or have to formulate contingency
plans.18

As with the
infinite God’s relationship to space, so His relationship to
time is as the Creator to the thing created. Since God is infinite,
He is completely free from any limitations that time would ordinarily
impose on a finite being. God exists altogether beyond the realm of
created time, yet He has access to the whole dimension of time in
what we would describe as the “present” moment. Simply
stated, God is not “in time” any more than He is “in
space.”

God’s
Temporality in Open Theism

Although
they affirm God’s infinity, open theists have difficulty with
the ramifications of God’s infinity with respect to time. For
example, John Sanders describes the traditional theistic view of
eternity in negative terms as God’s abstraction from time and
writes, “If God is immune to time then biblical personalism
must be left behind.”19
Clark Pinnock elaborates on this idea by saying, “If God did
not experience events as they transpire, he would not experience or
know the world as it actually is. If God’s eternity were
timeless, God could not be related to our temporal world.”20
Pinnock also asserts that God’s timelessness “creates
problems for biblical history, which portrays God as One who projects
plans, experiences the flow of temporal passage and faces the future
as not completely settled....A timeless being could not make plans
and carry them out.”21
Another open theist, Richard Rice, believes that God’s ability
to take action in a temporal world necessitates that God is “in
time:”

To say that God acts, therefore, means that it makes sense to use the
words before and after when we talk about him. God makes decisions
and then he acts. He decides before he acts, he acts after he
decides. This is so simple that it sounds trivial, but it points to
a fundamental truth about God. Not only does he bring about change,
but in a significant sense God himself experiences change. After God
acts, the universe is different and God’s experience of the
universe is different. The concept of divine action thus involves
divine temporality. Time is real for God.22

Pinnock
further clarifies the contention of open theism regarding God’s
temporality in the following unmistakable terms:

I affirm that God is with us in time, experiencing the
succession of events with us. Past, present and future are real to
God. This underlies the biblical claim that God is an agent who
works in history, who makes plans and carries them out, who remembers
the past and gives promises about the future. God’s eternity
embraces time and takes temporal events into the divine life. The
God of the Bible is not timeless. His eternity means that there
has never been and never will be a time when God does not exist.
Timelessness limits God. It he were timeless, God would be unable to
work salvation in history, would be cut off from the world, have no
real relationship with people and would be completely static.23
[emphasis added]

In outlining
the reasons that open theists view God as temporal, William Hasker
contends that the traditional doctrine of God’s timelessness is
not mentioned or implied in all of Biblical revelation.

It may be worthwhile to state briefly the reasons for preferring the
view that God is temporal -- that he lives and interacts with us
through the changes of time. First of all, it is clear that the
doctrine of divine timelessness is not taught in the Bible and
does not reflect the way the biblical writers understood God. In
spite of appeals by defenders of the doctrine to texts such as Exodus
3:14, John 8:58 and 2 Peter 3:8, there simply is no trace in the
Scripture of the elaborate metaphysical and conceptual apparatus that
is required to make sense of divine timelessness. On the positive
side, the biblical writers undeniably do present God as living,
acting and reacting in time.24
[emphasis added]

Hasker’s
basic difficulty with divine timelessness seems to involve an
inability to reconcile this doctrine with philosophical
presuppositions. He states that “it is very hard to make clear
logical sense of the doctrine”25
and goes on to ask, “If God is truly timeless, so that temporal
determinations of before and after do not apply to him,
then how can God act in time, as the Scriptures say that he
does? How can he know what is occurring on the changing
earthly scene?”26
These are questions that deserve to be answered. What needs to be
emphasized is that the doctrine of divine timelessness is compatible
with God’s action upon and knowledge of the temporal details of
the universe which He created.

Problems
with the Temporality of God

Logical
Problems with God’s Temporality

If God is
temporal, then He is not infinite with respect to time. If God is
not infinite with respect to time then He cannot be infinite with
respect to space either, because “according to the dominant
contemporary scientific understanding, both time and space are
correlative. It is the space-time universe. There is no time
without space and no space without time. If so, then the logical
consequence of affirming that God is temporal would be to assert that
he is also spatial. This falls right into the lap of process
theology, which [open] theists claim to reject.”27
If God is not infinite with respect to the space-time universe, then
He is not infinite at all. This leads to the conclusion that God is
a finite being; He is like us, only “bigger” somehow.

Another
inconsistency with the idea of God’s temporality involves the
two logical options for God’s relationship to time: time would
have to be either inside God (part of His essential nature) or
outside God. If time is part of God’s essence, then how
could God be without a beginning? It is logically incoherent that
God could have an infinite number of temporal moments, as Bob Struck
demonstrates in a version of the Kalam argument:

Let’s assume God does exist within time for the sake of
argument. God would then live in a succession of time coextensive
with His own existence, in other words, time extending into the
infinite past. It would have to extend infinitely into past time
because both neo-classical theists and openness theists believe God
is eternal (of infinite duration), having no beginning and no end.
But for any given point in time (P), (P) itself would be preceded by
an infinite sequence of points in time before it could occur.
Therefore, it would seem (P) would never occur because there would be
no end to the infinite series of points in time preceding it. If we
conceive of that particular point in time (C) when God created the
physical universe, (C) also would be preceded by an infinite sequence
of points in time and so would never occur. But it is self-evident
that (C) did occur -- for here we are. Therefore, we must infer that
all the points in time which preceded (C) must have occurred; and if
they have occurred then there was not an infinite sequence of points
in time which preceded (C). Yet we’ve already agreed that if
God lives in time then that time must be coextensive with His
existence which is infinite. So either the time within which God
lives is infinite (and the physical universe would never come into
existence) or God does not live in time.28

This
argument also demonstrates that if God were temporal then He Himself
would have had a beginning, and this is contrary to the doctrine of
God’s eternity which open theists accept. The other logical
option is that time exists outside God, and Norman Geisler
describes the repercussions of this view for open theism (which he
labels “neotheism”):

If, on the other hand, neotheism claims that time is “outside”
God, then some sort of dualism emerges. For, if time is outside God,
then we must ask whether time had a beginning or not. If it did not,
then it could be argued that there is something outside God that he
did not create, since it is as eternal as he is. And this...is a
form of dualism where some reality eternally exists outside God that
was not created by him. On the other hand, if time is outside of God
and had a beginning, then it must have been created by God (since
everything with a beginning had a cause). And in this event we are
right back to the theistic position that time is created by God, and
that God, as the Creator of time, is not temporal.29

The view
that God is temporal, therefore, is plagued by problems of logical
inconsistency.

Confusion
in Applying Human Language to an Infinite Being

Open
theists, such as Hasker and Rice, often apply the terms before
and after to God’s experience, but this constitutes an
error in the application of language to an infinite being. Douglas
Kelly criticizes open theists for making such an error:

It seems to me that these “openness” writers have failed
to think through the profound implications of the difference between
created (finite) and uncreated (infinite) being. This failure to
think clearly is manifestly demonstrated in their impoverished grasp
of the relationship of language to being (i.e., epistemology). They
seem to work on the assumption of the univocal validity of language
for both God and man. That is, a word must mean for God the exact
same thing it does for a human. For instance, “before and
after” impose on God’s experience the same limitations
they do on that of humankind. But one wonders how they could have
neglected the church’s pivotal teaching on the analogical usage
of language (i.e., that there are both similarities and differences
when the same word is applied to created and uncreated being). A
brief reading of a few sections of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa
Theologiae or perhaps chapter five of E. L. Mascall’s
Existence and Analogy might have transformed their book. And
long before Aquinas or Mascall, Saint Hilary of Poitiers (fourth
century) wisely remarked (in De Trinitate 4:14) that human
words are subject to God, rather than God being subject to human
words (in the sense of comprehensively defined and thus limited by
them). The human mind “must not measure the divine nature by
the limitations of [its] own” (1:17).30

It is
important to keep in mind that the infinite God cannot be bound by
the language of finite and temporal beings, especially in the complex
area of His infinity with respect to time.

Confusion
of God’s Actions with His Attributes

Many of the
“openness” arguments for God’s temporality involve
their denial that a timeless being has the ability to act in time;
they say that a God who acts in time must be in time.
This assumption, however, confuses God’s actions with His
attributes. God has the attribute of infinity, and yet His actions
occur in the temporal universe. The open theists seem to have no
trouble believing that the infinite God created the universe ex
nihilo, but does not this involve His acting in time without
being a creature Himself? Why should an infinite God who can act in
His created space-time universe be required to be temporal? Geisler
further clarifies this important issue and provides a helpful analogy
for understanding the relationship of a timeless God to the temporal
universe:

The neotheist assumes that the cause of any temporal act must itself
be temporal. But no proof is offered that this must be the case.
The argument given proves only that the effect is temporal,
not the cause. Indeed, classical theists have gone to great
lengths to demonstrate that the cause cannot be temporal like
its effect -- in both the Kalam original-cause and in the thomistic
current-cause arguments. The cause is eternal and the effect is
temporal. Or, the cause is infinite and the effect is finite. So,
there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the cause of an effect
in time must be temporal as the effect is....There is no reason why
the Eternal cannot act in the temporal world. Just as all the radii
of a circle are many and yet the center from which they come is one,
even so God can have multiple acts in a temporal sequence without
being temporal himself. Likewise, just as spokes move faster at the
circumference, and not at all at the absolute center, even so God’s
actions can occur in a moving temporal world without him moving
through time. There is nothing logically incoherent about a timeless
God acting in a temporal world.31

As Geisler
has shown, there is no logical inconsistency in believing that the
infinite Creator acts in the created space-time universe. There is
nothing precluding Him from doing so. In fact, there are good
reasons for believing that God’s perspective on time is much
different than ours and yet this difference in perspective in no way
prohibits God’s active relationship to every detail of His
creation. Nash provides a slightly different viewpoint on the
analogy of the circle given by Geisler:

While the points of a circle are related to each other in a
particular order, all points maintain the same relation to the
circle’s center. The points of a circle can be interpreted as
occupying the relationships of before, after, and simultaneous with.
Even though point A might be prior to point B and B subsequent to A,
both points occupy the same relation to the center of the circle.
Using this analogy, the defender of timelessness might claim that
though every temporal event has the same relationship to God’s
eternal present, God can still know that A comes before B and C comes
after B. But obviously, no one living along the points of the
circle, so to speak, could know what God knows from His position at
the center of the circle.32

This spatial
analogy can certainly help us to understand the perspective which God
has regarding time. Another helpful analogy involves the
relationship of the author and the reader to a work of fiction:

Once the novel is completed, the author has a different relationship
to the sequence of events in the novel than someone reading it for
the first time. The reader encounters a series of events in
chronological order. But there is a sense in which the author of the
novel has a simultaneous overview of all the events. To the author,
the entire book is in his present, in a manner of speaking. He could
have written the end before the beginning. But in order to follow
the story, the reader must read the book sequentially and thus
perceive how what is future for the characters in chapter four
becomes a part of their past in chapter six. Because two
perspectives (that of the author and the reader) can be
distinguished, two kinds of experience of temporal sequence
exist....All of the analogies run into difficulty if pushed too far.
But they all have one merit, namely, showing that some sense can be
made of the claim that the same events can be viewed from such
radically different perspectives that they must be described with
different temporal predicates.33

Reaffirming
God’s Timelessness

It is clear
that the problems with God’s temporality reaffirm the classical
theistic position regarding God’s infinity with respect to time
-- that God is indeed timeless. Geisler summarizes the debate on the
issue of God’s supposed temporality in the following words:

Neotheism affirms that God created the entire spatial-temporal
universe. But if this is so, then time is part of the essence of the
cosmos. In short, God created time. But if time is of the essence
of creation, then it cannot be an attribute of the uncreated -- that
is, of God who is beyond time and the Creator of it. The Creator of
time cannot be temporal, since time has a beginning and its Creator
does not. For the principle of causality demands that everything
that has a beginning (or comes to be) has a cause. The universe and
time had a beginning. Hence, it must have a cause (i.e., God) who
did not have a cause. This being the case, God is not part of the
temporal order any more than the Creator is part of the creation; or,
the infinite God is part of the finite world he made. Therefore, God
must be the nontemporal Cause of the temporal world. The attribute
of nontemporality is exactly what neotheists reject, yet it appears
to follow logically from their own view of creation. So if
neotheists would be consistent with their own position, they should
accept classical theism’s view of the nontemporality
(eternality) of God.34

In addition
to the clear logical reasons for reaffirming God’s
timelessness, there is ample biblical support for the doctrine that
God, as the Creator of time, is beyond time. In John 17:5 Jesus
expressed the glory He had with the Father “before the world
began.” The apostle Paul described God’s choosing those
who are His “before the creation of the world” (Ephesians
1:4), and declared that God’s grace was given in Christ “before
the beginning of time” (2 Timothy 1:9). Hebrews 1:2 tells of
God “framing the ages” (time), and Jude 25 proclaims that
Jesus Christ was “before all ages.” God has no beginning
and no end, He exists beyond the limits of time, He is the Creator of
time and is truly timeless.

Implications
of God’s Infinity for the Foreknowledge of God

Although he
does not specifically identify his view on the issue of God’s
temporality in his book about God’s foreknowledge, it is
obvious that open theist Greg Boyd presupposes God’s
temporality as an underlying belief. Boyd argues that God does not
know how the future will turn out, He sometimes regrets the decisions
He has made in the past, He is often confronted with the unexpected,
and He experiences frustration because His creatures choose
unpredictable courses of action.

Those who oppose the open view of God on the grounds that it
compromises God’s omniscience are simply misguided. The debate
between the open and classical understandings of divine foreknowledge
is completely a debate over the nature of the future: Is it
exhaustively settled from all eternity, or is it partly open? That
is the question at hand, nothing else....If God does not foreknow
future free actions, it is not because his knowledge of the future is
in any sense incomplete. It’s because there is, in this view,
nothing definite there for God to know!35

The implicit
basis for such a statement is the foundational assumption that God is
not timeless but is “in time” and therefore cannot know
what the future holds. The argument proposed by Boyd and other open
theists could be stated as follows: 1) God knows events as they
occur in time; 2) The truth value of temporal events changes over
time (for example, it is not currently true that the apostle Paul is
living. This was true at one time in the past, but it ceased to be
true on a specific day around A.D. 65); 3)
Therefore, God must be temporal since His knowledge changes over
time. This argument, however, involves a category mistake that is
explained by Geisler: “An infinite, eternal God knows what
we know but not in the way we know it. As an eternal being,
God knows eternally. As temporal beings, we know temporally. Each
being must know in the way he can know, namely in accordance with his
own nature. For instance, neotheists believe that God is infinite.
If so, then he must know infinitely. But we are finite and know only
finitely. Therefore, God knows what we know only in a different way
than we know it.”36
God is timeless and has a perspective that is completely different
from that of His finite creatures.

The open
theists’ view of God’s foreknowledge does not take into
account the fact that the future consists of what is actual as well
as what is possible. As an infinite and eternal being, God has
knowledge of both aspects of the future. On this basis, Geisler
challenges the open theists’ supposition that there is nothing
real or definite in the future for God to know:

It is claimed by some that God can only know what is real, not what
is unreal. And the future is not real. So, God cannot know the
future. But the future is real. Reality is composed of both
the actual and the potential. Potentialities are real. For
instance, there is a real difference between the potential of dry
wood, which can burn at normal fireplace temperatures, and wet wood,
which does not have this potential. Likewise, humans have the
potential to learn calculus, and laboratory rats do not. There is a
real difference between the potential of steel to be made into an
automobile and the potential of water for the same purpose. But if
potentials are real, and the future is a potential that has not yet
been actualized, then there is no reason why a mind that can know
whatever is real cannot know the future....The traditional theist
insists that by definition an omniscient (all-knowing) being knows
everything that is possible to know. And the only thing that is
impossible to know is an impossibility (e.g., an actual contradiction
like a square circle). But the future is not an actual
contradiction, otherwise it would not be able to materialize like it
does. Therefore, it does not follow that God cannot know the
future.37

Logic does
not dictate, then, that God cannot know the future: there is
something there for God to know and He knows it in a different way
than finite and temporal beings can know.

God’s
Foreknowledge and Determinism of His Creatures’ Actions

Another
issue raised by the open theists is that if God were able to know the
future actions of mankind, then those actions could be considered
predetermined, fixed, and in no sense the freely chosen actions of
autonomous beings. This view, however, involves a mistaken
understanding of God’s foreknowledge.

Since God is an omniscient being, he knows with certainty what
we will do freely. The fact that he knows “in advance”
from a temporal perspective does not mean the event cannot happen
freely. For God can know for sure that the event will occur
freely. The necessity of his knowledge about the contingent
event does not make the event necessary (i.e., contrary to free
choice). It simply makes his knowledge of this free event an
infallible knowledge.38

God’s
foreknowledge of future human behavior does not necessarily exert a
causative influence which overpowers the so-called free will of His
creatures. The mere fact that God knows a future action will not
cause that action to occur in violation of human choice.

When Mr. Brown sees Mr. Smith scratching his ear, Brown’s
perception of what Smith does obviously cannot have any causal
influence on Smith’s action. What any person perceives in the
present is simple vision, a vision that cannot cause or make
necessary that which is being perceived. Similarly, whatever God
might perceive in the present would likewise lack any necessitating
or causal effect on what He perceives. But because God is outside of
time, is timeless, all of God’s knowledge occurs in His
eternal present. There is no future for God; there is no past for
God. Everything that belongs to the human past and everything that
will happen in the human future is, on this view of God, eternally
present to God’s consciousness. Technically, then, God does
not have foreknowledge even though He infallibly knows
everything that will happen in the future. But since His knowledge
of the human future exists in His present, His knowledge does not
cause or necessitate the future. According to Boethius: “this
divine foreknowledge does not change the nature and property of
things; it simply sees things present to it exactly as they will
happen at some time as future events. It makes no confused judgments
of things, but with one glance of its mind distinguished all that is
to come to pass whether it is necessitated or not”39

God will
bring specific events to pass by His own sovereign will, but His
fore-knowledge or “pre-vision” of future events should
not be viewed as exerting an inevitable causative influence and
therefore as being deterministic. As Geisler has stated, “God
sees (in his eternal present) the whole of time: past, present, and
future (for us). But if God sees our future in his present, then our
future is present to him in his eternity. In this way there is no
problem as to how he can foresee free acts. He does not need to
foresee; he simply sees. And what he sees (in his
eternal now) includes what free acts will be performed in our
future....God can know free acts without causally determining them.”40

The
Infinity of God with Respect to Knowledge

The One who
created and sustains every detail of the universe is certainly able
to know all things. Lewis Sperry Chafer maintained that the concept
of “infinity” occurs three times in Scripture,41
and the one instance where it applies to God is in reference to His
knowledge: “His understanding has no limit” (Psalm
147:5). The writer of Proverbs says, “The eyes of the Lord are
everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good” (Prov.
15:3). In Matthew 10:29-30, Jesus affirmed that not a sparrow can
fall to the ground apart from the will of the Father, and that God
knew even the number of hairs on the disciples’ heads. The
apostle Paul proclaimed the rich depths of the wisdom and knowledge
of God by saying that His judgments and thoughts are beyond the
capabilities of the finite human mind (Romans 11:33). The writer to
the Hebrews clearly declared that, “all things are open and
laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do” (Heb.
4:13). Erickson summarizes the biblical support for God’s
infinity with respect to knowledge: “The infinity of God may
also be considered with respect to objects of knowledge....We are all
completely transparent before God. He sees and knows us totally. He
knows every truth, even those not yet discovered by man, for it was
he who built them into the creation. And he therefore knows every
genuine possibility, even when they seem limitless in number.”42
It can be concluded, then, that God’s foreknowledge does not
necessitate that the freely chosen acts of His creatures be viewed as
completely predetermined. A proper understanding of the timelessness
of God clears up the issues with which open theists struggle
regarding God’s knowledge of the future.

Conclusion

The
traditional or classical concept of God includes an interdependent
“package of attributes” that is logically and
theologically consistent and coherent. Open theists have attempted
to modify specific characteristics within the traditional framework,
and in doing so they have upset the balance within this harmonious
grouping of attributes. It is not possible for open theism to accept
the infinity of God while rejecting His infinity with respect to
time. As has been clearly demonstrated, the open theists’
doctrine of God’s temporality is fraught with logical
inconsistencies which have devastating consequences for theology
proper. It has been shown that it is simply impossible to “revise
classical theism in a dynamic direction without falling into process
theology....without making God finite.”43
It has also been established that it is impossible to accept God’s
creation ex nihilo of the space-time universe while rejecting
His existence beyond the dimension of time. In order to be
consistent with their own position, open theists are brought full
circle to the view held by classical theists regarding God’s
timelessness and all that this doctrine implies.